This paper argues that in order for philosophy to move forward without undue baggage, post-modernism should be addressed from the analytic perspective--including the contemporary philosophy that has grown out of it. This paper takes up that task with relation to Derrida's "Diff�rance" through a discussion of language and meaning in Frege, Russell, Quine and Paul Churchland. In discussing the differences between these thinkers' theories of meaning we can see that post-modernism, at least with regard to Derrida's account of language and meaning in "Diff�rance," was a false start that ultimately provided an unnecessary critique of modern positions. This is due, in part, to a misunderstanding of the modern tradition itself, and an incorrect interpretation of Nietzsche. In the course of making this argument, we gain insight into the commonalities shared by the two major branches of the modern tradition (analytic philosophy and continental philosophy) and can see that they provide complementary accounts of language and meaning (Churchland's neurosemantics and Habermas' communicative reason).

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews